AG Sparks Outrage from Left and Right with Vow to Continue Biden Administration’s Censorship

The Trump administration announced it would begin policing “hate speech.”

There is no legal definition of the term “hate speech.” No law currently defines, mentions, or addresses the term. And, the highest court in the land does not recognize the term as a valid exemption to First Amendment-protected speech.

Following the assassination of prominent conservative Christian advocate Charlie Kirk earlier this month, Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated in a podcast interview that the government would crack down on speech viewed as hateful.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place — especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society,” said Bondi in the Katie Miller podcast. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, and that’s across the aisle.”

Backlash ensued from both the right and left.

Tucker UNLEASHES on AG Pam Bondi with a blistering 3-minute rebuttal to her remarks on “hate speech.”

The monologue version of Tucker is back. This is EXACTLY what we need from him right now.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech. This is the Attorney General of the… pic.twitter.com/1M9B0nmEp7

— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 17, 2025

In an attempt to modify her stance, Bondi later released a statement clarifying that the federal government would only target hate speech containing threats of violence.

Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.

Under 18 U.S.C. §…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) September 16, 2025

The First Amendment does generally protect “hate speech,” and even some speech perceived as violent.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect speech that directs, with a likelihood to produce, crime. Those two conditions determined by the Supreme Court created the current litmus test for protected speech: imminent lawless action, which declares prosecutable speech must have both the intent and likelihood of inciting or producing immediate crime.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does protect speech which is perceived to be “offensive” (Matal v. Tam), “hurtful” (Snyder v. Phelps), and even “hateful” (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota).

The current administration has also faced criticisms for its investigations into “antisemitic” speech. Free speech advocates argue protests against Israel and criticisms of Jewish individuals fall within protected speech.

Although the current administration is of another political party and largely on the opposite end of the political spectrum compared to the last, the two do seem to share an interest in moderating speech.

In 2023, it was revealed the Bident administration sought to censor that which they deemed online misinformation and disinformation concerning elections. The Arizona Daily Independent was included on this censorship list managed by the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a coalition which included the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.

The last administration also sought to censor views with which they disagreed. Last May, the House Judiciary Committee revealed the Biden administration pressured large companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon to censor books, videos, posts, and other online content.

Governor Katie Hobbs acted similarly while serving as secretary of state, pressuring social media platforms to remove content with which she disagreed — especially those things published by her political opponents.